It was about 10 years ago when the internet was still new and groovy, that I got my first taste of the power of bandwidth.
Having just learned of the miracle of attachments, I’d emailed an entire 64 print-ready PDF paged newspaper to my printers, who were located in another state, 1500 kilometres away. It had been a horror deadline and we’d missed the flight that used to take our CD. In fact, it was after midnight and I thought ‘Why not gun this new IT stuff and see how it performs? What’s the worst that can happen?’
The result; our computer server – running a 56kb modem – totally zoned out. When we came into work – 8 hours after hitting “send” - it was utterly non-responsive. We did the standard “reboot it and it will be fine” manoeuvre – several times – but it remained in a world of its own.
I called out our IT guy and explained what I’d done. He looked at me with the long disdainful blink that only a man in a cardigan who relates to circuitry and microchips can do.
“You tried to send an elephant through a straw,” he explained.
“Oh, okay,” I said. “That was a really bad idea then. You can’t fit an elephant down a straw.”
“Well, you can,” he said. “But you have to cut it up into really tiny pieces first.”
It was an “Aha!” moment.
Any expectation of computer work ended for the day. Our poor old system just needed to chew up the elephant. I sent the journalists out on assignment, the sales team out to see customers.
Without the technology, we went back to basics and worked the relationships face to face.
At 3pm – nearly 15 hours after sending the first files – our printers phoned. The pages had turned up and they had stuff to work with. The elephant had come out the other end.
Two hours later, they phoned again. The CD we had sent on the plane the following morning had also showed up. The same information, sent by a traditional method, arrived safely, but more slowly. But they’d moved on and did not need it.
As a newspaper, we never looked back. From that day on we sent the files via email – albeit in smaller bites – and gave the computer time to digest.
I used the money saved from freight to invest in ADSL and later broadband, and within a year or so the files were flying through.
In the latest Newsmedia Outlook 2009, the idea of bandwidth is discussed as something that media executives and leaders need to embrace. Do they have the bandwidth to cope with the fast moving, transitional newspaper market that we find ourselves in? The report’s author, Earl Wilkinson defines it as “slang for the ability to perform multiple tasks”.
The current newspaper environment of constant change, dramatic revenue losses and the shift by readers to online is a mighty elephant for executives to chew over, while at the same time producing newspapers – often daily – and strategising for future success.
But there is no way we can expect that elephant to go down the straw as a whole. It has to be minced up and an enormous amount of trust placed in the idea that it will come out the other end, rebuilt, and still recognisable as an elephant.
Putting faith in this process gives us a time advantage. If we wait for the whole elephant to be sent via freight, we may have greater control, but we risk discovering we’ve left it too late - that the market for elephants has totally dried up and everyone has moved on.
Ever since that fateful day of 64 pages down a 56kb line, “bandwidth” has been part of my vernacular. It’s the word used for those days when you have 147 things on your to do list. You know realistically that you’ll only get maybe 20 of them sorted. But deciding not to think about the rest at all is just not an option. If you do, one of the 127 will jump up and bite you - badly.
But here is the other thing about bandwidth – that the more you jam that elephant down the straw, the more the straw stretches. Just as our 56kb became ADSL and then later broadband, bandwidth expands the more you use it - and the more you invest in it.
First published in the INMA Ideas magazine, 2008. www.inma.org
Thursday, 14 May 2009
Newspapers need to walk the talk
On the day the Australian government announced its package of measures to defend the economy from the Global Financial Crisis, the splash in the Sydney Morning Herald read: Spend til we mend.
“Excellent,” I said to my then-editor the next day. “Is that the approach we as a newspaper company are taking?”There was much laughter around the news desk, because of course, while we could talk the talk on the news pages, as the fourth estate we reserve ultimately our right to live by the maxim “Do as we say, don’t do as we do”.
Governments around the world announced their investment packages to see their countries through the storms, aware that it was a risk, hopeful it would work, knowing that there was no guarantee.
It got me thinking about the example our world leaders have set for newspaper and media company executives. Have we now entered a new era where it is acceptable to consider the idea of spending in lean times and taking risks? And if so, how long will it take for newspaper companies to cotton on and get with the new program?
Because let’s face it, as an industry, we prefer incremental adjustments and “evolutionary” change. I’ve always been astonished at the idea of evolution as the preferred method for adjusting to the lightning fast digital revolution – do it’s proponents understand that evolution takes tens of thousands of years is based on “survival of the fittest”? And that itself begs the questions – can we wait that long? And what if we’re part of the chain that dies off?
It highlights our misuse of language. For a business based on a bunch of wordsmiths, newspapers and newspaper people sure as hell can get their definitions mixed up while blindly believing we speak the ultimate truth.
Maybe it’s our determination to have headlines on our pages that don’t repeat key words that make us shorthand important ideas, even in the language that we use in running our businesses.
Here are some common words whose definitions are often confused:
We talk about strategies as newspaper companies, when we really mean our plans.
We talk about innovation, when we really mean creativity.
We talk about communication when what we really mean is lecturing or being the ones that everyone else listens to.
We talk about protecting our independence, when we are really protecting our egos.
At the risk of sounding like a grumpy old sub editor, the subtlety of definition between words IS important, especially in newspapers where language is sacrosanct.
Newspaper companies currently need broad-reaching strategies that support strong visions to reposition themselves – both editorially and commercially – in the digital world. This is hard work, takes a Herculean effort to conceptualise, and a willingness to get a few things wrong, while defending strong investment to the market. Our reality still sadly only translates into short-term plans that focus on the next quarter’s result which can hopefully be shored up by reducing book sizes, cutting another round of staff and offering sales teams new incentives to flog the same old products.
Editorially we are just as bad. We tell ourselves we are totally innovative, while overseeing another page redesign and twiddling with the promotional boxes or layout, while real business growth opportunities languish for want of editorial love, because journalists don’t talk to advertisers (we just interview business operators and experts – there’s no way we’d incorporate their expertise into our business – that would offend our independence.)
And we talk about our communication skills proudly, while our letters to the editor, blogs, subscriber dialogue, reader feedback, and advertising satisfaction are all handled by totally separate silos, and we thunder our learned opinions from the Editorial pulpit.
There is a common theme running through all these verbal misuses; as an industry, we are claiming to be on top of it all, to have our eyes on the big picture. In reality, we have our fingers in our ears and are shouting “la, la, la”.
The devastating headlines internationally about the failures of newspaper companies – putting staff on unpaid leave, additional layoffs, sales to former KGB agents and share price plummets, show no one is fooled.
If we are not clear in the language that we use to communicate what we do and how we do it - and how we relate to each other and our advertisers, readers and staff and where we are headed - then confusion and cynicism reigns.
This ensures your integrity goes off kilter and before you know it, you’re running a newspaper that cannot be trusted – not because of that quality of your journalism, but because of the quality of your own internal messaging and the spin we’re believing about ourselves.
We wouldn’t tolerate it from the industries and bureaucracies we report on.
Good grammar and language use, and strong communication should not just be something reserved for the front page – it is integral to our brands and our businesses.
“Excellent,” I said to my then-editor the next day. “Is that the approach we as a newspaper company are taking?”There was much laughter around the news desk, because of course, while we could talk the talk on the news pages, as the fourth estate we reserve ultimately our right to live by the maxim “Do as we say, don’t do as we do”.
Governments around the world announced their investment packages to see their countries through the storms, aware that it was a risk, hopeful it would work, knowing that there was no guarantee.
It got me thinking about the example our world leaders have set for newspaper and media company executives. Have we now entered a new era where it is acceptable to consider the idea of spending in lean times and taking risks? And if so, how long will it take for newspaper companies to cotton on and get with the new program?
Because let’s face it, as an industry, we prefer incremental adjustments and “evolutionary” change. I’ve always been astonished at the idea of evolution as the preferred method for adjusting to the lightning fast digital revolution – do it’s proponents understand that evolution takes tens of thousands of years is based on “survival of the fittest”? And that itself begs the questions – can we wait that long? And what if we’re part of the chain that dies off?
It highlights our misuse of language. For a business based on a bunch of wordsmiths, newspapers and newspaper people sure as hell can get their definitions mixed up while blindly believing we speak the ultimate truth.
Maybe it’s our determination to have headlines on our pages that don’t repeat key words that make us shorthand important ideas, even in the language that we use in running our businesses.
Here are some common words whose definitions are often confused:
We talk about strategies as newspaper companies, when we really mean our plans.
We talk about innovation, when we really mean creativity.
We talk about communication when what we really mean is lecturing or being the ones that everyone else listens to.
We talk about protecting our independence, when we are really protecting our egos.
At the risk of sounding like a grumpy old sub editor, the subtlety of definition between words IS important, especially in newspapers where language is sacrosanct.
Newspaper companies currently need broad-reaching strategies that support strong visions to reposition themselves – both editorially and commercially – in the digital world. This is hard work, takes a Herculean effort to conceptualise, and a willingness to get a few things wrong, while defending strong investment to the market. Our reality still sadly only translates into short-term plans that focus on the next quarter’s result which can hopefully be shored up by reducing book sizes, cutting another round of staff and offering sales teams new incentives to flog the same old products.
Editorially we are just as bad. We tell ourselves we are totally innovative, while overseeing another page redesign and twiddling with the promotional boxes or layout, while real business growth opportunities languish for want of editorial love, because journalists don’t talk to advertisers (we just interview business operators and experts – there’s no way we’d incorporate their expertise into our business – that would offend our independence.)
And we talk about our communication skills proudly, while our letters to the editor, blogs, subscriber dialogue, reader feedback, and advertising satisfaction are all handled by totally separate silos, and we thunder our learned opinions from the Editorial pulpit.
There is a common theme running through all these verbal misuses; as an industry, we are claiming to be on top of it all, to have our eyes on the big picture. In reality, we have our fingers in our ears and are shouting “la, la, la”.
The devastating headlines internationally about the failures of newspaper companies – putting staff on unpaid leave, additional layoffs, sales to former KGB agents and share price plummets, show no one is fooled.
If we are not clear in the language that we use to communicate what we do and how we do it - and how we relate to each other and our advertisers, readers and staff and where we are headed - then confusion and cynicism reigns.
This ensures your integrity goes off kilter and before you know it, you’re running a newspaper that cannot be trusted – not because of that quality of your journalism, but because of the quality of your own internal messaging and the spin we’re believing about ourselves.
We wouldn’t tolerate it from the industries and bureaucracies we report on.
Good grammar and language use, and strong communication should not just be something reserved for the front page – it is integral to our brands and our businesses.
Manners maketh the newspaper
While major metropolitan newspapers howl about the changing market that has resulted in advertising slumps and circulation struggles, local and regional papers are not suffering the same way.
Part of the reason is undoubtedly the lesser impact of the internet on the local market – smaller businesses that are the bread and butter of local and regional papers are slower to jump online.
When your market walks past your business every day, there’s often not a strong reason to invest your advertising dollars heavily into online just yet - especially when local newspapers are extremely affordable in their advertising charges. In Australia, the fact that online access in the bush is generally so woeful is another key factor. And why place an online job ad when a note in the window of your shop works just as well?
But even when the bandwidth along the backroads improves, I don’t believe there will be an almighty exodus from local and regional papers.
The reason for this heresay is that local papers understand and play a key role in their communities, so much better than their big city cousins. In fact, so much better that snooty, sophisticated suits from the big smoke could certainly learn something from them.
The bigger the paper, the bigger the bureaucracy, the more difficult the connection between the advertising sales, marketing and the issues and events of the day.
But place an ad in any local paper and the owner of the business “knows” it works – because he saw it, his wife saw it and his kids’ teacher in the local high school mentioned it to him at bowls.
In bigger papers, the degrees of separation are greater, and as such they are exploited as excuses by the lazier and deluded among us.
In a local newspaper, a story tip off is quickly acted upon, shared with the sales team for any “special report” opportunities, and if the event is big, suddenly an entire edition is promoted and swung behind it to bring in extra readers. If an important local identity or advertiser calls the paper, senior staff “hup two” and get back to them.
In fact, all phone calls are returned, and serious emails addressed because let’s face it, you’ll probably bump into that person down the pub if you don’t and they’ll give you a hard time for ignoring them.
As a local newspaper publisher, some of the best advice I got about how to improve the newspaper and business came from advertisers or local identities who cared about my paper to give me lots of gratuitous free advice. The trick was the swallow the pride and return the call first though.
On big city papers, we hide behind siloed job descriptions and department definitions so that we can excuse our refusal to engage. We don’t return calls because in our eyes, they’re not important. (how do we know?). We ignore emails both internally and externally because there’s just so many of them. We tell marketing or sales that it’s not our job to meet or talk with advertisers because they might “pollute” our editorial purity. As such, we rely constantly on the same sources and contacts for our information. We close off our ability to be surprised from left field. We insist on viewing an increasingly connected world according to our own entrenched and self important delineation.
And our readers and advertisers shake their heads in confusion as they walk away.
Metropolitan newspapers need to stop being so obsessed about the journalism, and worry about the connection and care factor. We need to return to the common courtesies that decide the quality of a community. Even if we do only bump into people to be called to account once every six months, rather than every six days, we should behave as if we might. We should act as if we care and maybe we really will start to.
If we’re not happy with our readership numbers or the dollars we’re bringing in, the question is not “how do we sell this harder?”. The question is “What is our own behaviour doing that shows we feel far too superior to give a damn?”.
First published in the Panpa Bulletin. See www.panpa.org.au
Part of the reason is undoubtedly the lesser impact of the internet on the local market – smaller businesses that are the bread and butter of local and regional papers are slower to jump online.
When your market walks past your business every day, there’s often not a strong reason to invest your advertising dollars heavily into online just yet - especially when local newspapers are extremely affordable in their advertising charges. In Australia, the fact that online access in the bush is generally so woeful is another key factor. And why place an online job ad when a note in the window of your shop works just as well?
But even when the bandwidth along the backroads improves, I don’t believe there will be an almighty exodus from local and regional papers.
The reason for this heresay is that local papers understand and play a key role in their communities, so much better than their big city cousins. In fact, so much better that snooty, sophisticated suits from the big smoke could certainly learn something from them.
The bigger the paper, the bigger the bureaucracy, the more difficult the connection between the advertising sales, marketing and the issues and events of the day.
But place an ad in any local paper and the owner of the business “knows” it works – because he saw it, his wife saw it and his kids’ teacher in the local high school mentioned it to him at bowls.
In bigger papers, the degrees of separation are greater, and as such they are exploited as excuses by the lazier and deluded among us.
In a local newspaper, a story tip off is quickly acted upon, shared with the sales team for any “special report” opportunities, and if the event is big, suddenly an entire edition is promoted and swung behind it to bring in extra readers. If an important local identity or advertiser calls the paper, senior staff “hup two” and get back to them.
In fact, all phone calls are returned, and serious emails addressed because let’s face it, you’ll probably bump into that person down the pub if you don’t and they’ll give you a hard time for ignoring them.
As a local newspaper publisher, some of the best advice I got about how to improve the newspaper and business came from advertisers or local identities who cared about my paper to give me lots of gratuitous free advice. The trick was the swallow the pride and return the call first though.
On big city papers, we hide behind siloed job descriptions and department definitions so that we can excuse our refusal to engage. We don’t return calls because in our eyes, they’re not important. (how do we know?). We ignore emails both internally and externally because there’s just so many of them. We tell marketing or sales that it’s not our job to meet or talk with advertisers because they might “pollute” our editorial purity. As such, we rely constantly on the same sources and contacts for our information. We close off our ability to be surprised from left field. We insist on viewing an increasingly connected world according to our own entrenched and self important delineation.
And our readers and advertisers shake their heads in confusion as they walk away.
Metropolitan newspapers need to stop being so obsessed about the journalism, and worry about the connection and care factor. We need to return to the common courtesies that decide the quality of a community. Even if we do only bump into people to be called to account once every six months, rather than every six days, we should behave as if we might. We should act as if we care and maybe we really will start to.
If we’re not happy with our readership numbers or the dollars we’re bringing in, the question is not “how do we sell this harder?”. The question is “What is our own behaviour doing that shows we feel far too superior to give a damn?”.
First published in the Panpa Bulletin. See www.panpa.org.au
The innovation challenge of daring to make mistakes
Newspapers are ferociously creative places. The constant deadlines, the pace and the stimulation from the constant barrage of information from the outside world mean we are among the best at creating interesting ways to entertain, amuse, inform and delight our readers on a regular basis.
Newspapers are also notoriously terrified of mistakes. From a typo on page 1, to confusing a fact or editing a quote into a misquote, the idea of getting something wrong is humiliating, embarrassing, and drummed into us all from the moment we enter the building that it must be avoided at all costs.
So it’s a tricky thing to argue that newspapers are innovative or have a culture of innovation.
Innovative is different to creative. Innovation is about looking at what is, and what is to come next, and delivering a concept and an idea at an entirely different level that spans the gap between the two. It’s not about organising the information to fit the box more beautifully. It’s about questioning whether a box is the right device at all and often, inventing an entirely new shape that is utterly delightful and compelling and makes boxes look totally last season.
This is why the iPod was innovative, but the idea of putting news on a website was simply creative. (still a great idea, but our response has been about repackaging what already existed and simply adjusting behaviour – not revolutionising it).
The size of our companies, the conservative nature of our thinking and our surety for so long that our world and revenue would never change has prevented, and even frowned upon, out-of-the-box thinking.
Let’s face it, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is a good maxim when times are good. And trying something different could be a mistake.
But now our business models are largely broken. And add to that, the global economic crisis is a kick in the guts that makes it hard to get out of bed some mornings. So now, more than ever, it’s the perfect time to stop looking longingly at what we’ve done in the past and look at the opportunity for the future.
Now is exactly the right time to be bold and brave and start being excited, not frightened, of making the odd mistake. The payoff for those things we get right is enormous. In the current climate, we will know that those ideas that prove sound really do have a basis. They are not the beneficiary of a bubble and can only go onwards and upwards when times get better.
The Leo Burnett Predictions 2009 report from Ben Hourahine in London does some sociological crystal ball reading of where society is heading. It’s actually good news for newspapers with the gumption to translate those insights into creative product development – or perhaps even risk a little innovation.
Hourahine says that 2009 will be driven by a “new realism”, “hyper-reality” and “the trust economy”. These are all things newspapers can benefit from.
The Predictions report states the current economic conditions are profoundly affecting our cultural context. Speculation and emotion – which went hand in hand with rising affluence – is being replaced by a grounded social and creative dialogue. People are looking for honesty and realism as they reflect upon their values, and they are examining priorities and purchasing.
“The language of hopes and dreams is being replaced by one of pragmatism and prudence,” he writes.
Newspapers, being excellent value, founded in reporting reality and searching for the truth fit strongly in this context – if they can juggle other dynamic factors. For at the same time, we are entering a time of “hyper reality” as the pace of change accelerates even faster, so we too, need to speed up.
“Governments will be judged by how they manage to change, and ironically, by how much they bring about,” Hourahine says. “Businesses will face major challenges to keep up with and evolve to meet people’s rapidly changing needs. As economies, societies and cultures are recast, the need to know what’s next has never been greater.”
For newspapers, this means that the days of news doom and gloom are over. While readers want to hear the truth, they do not want to feel helpless. Articles will need to throw forward, predicting ‘what’s next’ not just stating what happened. Readers are looking for information that is useful and can assist them navigating their own path through the mayhem with a clear head.
Newspapers are also highly likely to be judged by how ready they are to change to meet the demands of readers and advertisers, and their readiness to become involved in driving the debate around change. In such a climate, standing still will in reality mean you are going backwards.
“Organisations that show they are going the extra mile for people will prosper,” writes Hourahine, describing it as the “trust economy”.
“In turbulent times, we look to organisations that share our concerns, manage anxiety and take the lead.”
Protecting the integrity of our brands and their editorial independence is therefore paramount – cutting to the bone, letting advertising and editorial bleed together and taking economy driven shortcuts will not be tolerated, and in fact will potentially hurt our recovery when times improve.
Most tellingly for newspapers however is the “end of fact” premise. Hourahine claims that in the world at large, perceived wisdom is changing on a daily basis and contradictory opinions are presented as definitive.
“For organisations in the ‘fact’ business, this is both a threat and an opportunity,” Hourahine says in the report. “For media organisations, editorial oversight will be a key differentiator. In a time when truth is more contested than ever, objectivity and impartiality will become rarefied and more in demand.”
In the new world order, newspapers that are responsive to reader and advertiser demands, that are trustworthy and pragmatically optimistic but still dancing a confident line in editorial integrity, engaged and solutions-oriented journalism, will thrive.
Whether becoming such a newspaper of the future is simply a creative evolution for your newspaper, or a whole new innovative approach that is a dramatic stretch, depends on your business approach today.
See Ben Hourahine’s predictions and report at: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=B4SklqUWXa4
http://www.leoburnett.co.uk/
First published in the Panpa Bulletin, February 2009
Newspapers are also notoriously terrified of mistakes. From a typo on page 1, to confusing a fact or editing a quote into a misquote, the idea of getting something wrong is humiliating, embarrassing, and drummed into us all from the moment we enter the building that it must be avoided at all costs.
So it’s a tricky thing to argue that newspapers are innovative or have a culture of innovation.
Innovative is different to creative. Innovation is about looking at what is, and what is to come next, and delivering a concept and an idea at an entirely different level that spans the gap between the two. It’s not about organising the information to fit the box more beautifully. It’s about questioning whether a box is the right device at all and often, inventing an entirely new shape that is utterly delightful and compelling and makes boxes look totally last season.
This is why the iPod was innovative, but the idea of putting news on a website was simply creative. (still a great idea, but our response has been about repackaging what already existed and simply adjusting behaviour – not revolutionising it).
The size of our companies, the conservative nature of our thinking and our surety for so long that our world and revenue would never change has prevented, and even frowned upon, out-of-the-box thinking.
Let’s face it, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” is a good maxim when times are good. And trying something different could be a mistake.
But now our business models are largely broken. And add to that, the global economic crisis is a kick in the guts that makes it hard to get out of bed some mornings. So now, more than ever, it’s the perfect time to stop looking longingly at what we’ve done in the past and look at the opportunity for the future.
Now is exactly the right time to be bold and brave and start being excited, not frightened, of making the odd mistake. The payoff for those things we get right is enormous. In the current climate, we will know that those ideas that prove sound really do have a basis. They are not the beneficiary of a bubble and can only go onwards and upwards when times get better.
The Leo Burnett Predictions 2009 report from Ben Hourahine in London does some sociological crystal ball reading of where society is heading. It’s actually good news for newspapers with the gumption to translate those insights into creative product development – or perhaps even risk a little innovation.
Hourahine says that 2009 will be driven by a “new realism”, “hyper-reality” and “the trust economy”. These are all things newspapers can benefit from.
The Predictions report states the current economic conditions are profoundly affecting our cultural context. Speculation and emotion – which went hand in hand with rising affluence – is being replaced by a grounded social and creative dialogue. People are looking for honesty and realism as they reflect upon their values, and they are examining priorities and purchasing.
“The language of hopes and dreams is being replaced by one of pragmatism and prudence,” he writes.
Newspapers, being excellent value, founded in reporting reality and searching for the truth fit strongly in this context – if they can juggle other dynamic factors. For at the same time, we are entering a time of “hyper reality” as the pace of change accelerates even faster, so we too, need to speed up.
“Governments will be judged by how they manage to change, and ironically, by how much they bring about,” Hourahine says. “Businesses will face major challenges to keep up with and evolve to meet people’s rapidly changing needs. As economies, societies and cultures are recast, the need to know what’s next has never been greater.”
For newspapers, this means that the days of news doom and gloom are over. While readers want to hear the truth, they do not want to feel helpless. Articles will need to throw forward, predicting ‘what’s next’ not just stating what happened. Readers are looking for information that is useful and can assist them navigating their own path through the mayhem with a clear head.
Newspapers are also highly likely to be judged by how ready they are to change to meet the demands of readers and advertisers, and their readiness to become involved in driving the debate around change. In such a climate, standing still will in reality mean you are going backwards.
“Organisations that show they are going the extra mile for people will prosper,” writes Hourahine, describing it as the “trust economy”.
“In turbulent times, we look to organisations that share our concerns, manage anxiety and take the lead.”
Protecting the integrity of our brands and their editorial independence is therefore paramount – cutting to the bone, letting advertising and editorial bleed together and taking economy driven shortcuts will not be tolerated, and in fact will potentially hurt our recovery when times improve.
Most tellingly for newspapers however is the “end of fact” premise. Hourahine claims that in the world at large, perceived wisdom is changing on a daily basis and contradictory opinions are presented as definitive.
“For organisations in the ‘fact’ business, this is both a threat and an opportunity,” Hourahine says in the report. “For media organisations, editorial oversight will be a key differentiator. In a time when truth is more contested than ever, objectivity and impartiality will become rarefied and more in demand.”
In the new world order, newspapers that are responsive to reader and advertiser demands, that are trustworthy and pragmatically optimistic but still dancing a confident line in editorial integrity, engaged and solutions-oriented journalism, will thrive.
Whether becoming such a newspaper of the future is simply a creative evolution for your newspaper, or a whole new innovative approach that is a dramatic stretch, depends on your business approach today.
See Ben Hourahine’s predictions and report at: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=B4SklqUWXa4
http://www.leoburnett.co.uk/
First published in the Panpa Bulletin, February 2009
Wednesday, 13 May 2009
The Ps of Marketing Newspapers
The struggle that modern newspapers face in ensuring they remain viable and vibrant products, may have its root cause in the fact that as an industry, we’re trying to bend the rules of modern marketing.
Marketing theory states that there are four Ps that must be in alignment for a product to sing – Product, Position, Promotion and Price. Each of these four must sit parallel and in synergy with each other.
The theory goes that if you have a product that is well thought out, is delivered to its market strongly, promoted well and has a price that reflects its perceived value, it will go gangbusters in the market.
If even only one of the Ps is out of kilter however, it will wreck the ability of the other three to succeed. It doesn’t matter which one, and one is enough to derail a product totally. No matter what your gut instinct tells you, “you must align your Ps”.
The second law is that when deciding where to place your product, you need to make a key decision – are you going after a mass market, in which case you will compete strongly on price? Or are you going after a targeted market with a quality product that is proud to differentiate itself, in which case you can charge more, and in fact should to show the market your value.
I learned all of this as part of a 16 week course that was a precursor to an MBA and covered the key fundamentals of marketing, management and finance. This of course, makes me an instant expert, but we were encouraged to apply our knowledge back to our own businesses and industry and it didn’t take long to see where so many newspapers may be going wrong. Newspapers after all, are not brain surgery.
As online news forces metropolitan print newspapers to try to differentiate themselves by offering quality, depth and unique insights in reporting – as opposed to simply responding to breaking news – we are working enormously hard to become a quality product that offers an attractive, affluent and educated audience for our advertisers.
But we are striding boldly in this new direction with a pricing strategy that is mired in the olde-worlde of mass marketing.
Does the non-committed reader of a broadsheet newspaper really stand in front of a newsstand and scratch his head thinking “Well, I want to read a quality product with some depth and investigative reporting, but heck, the tabloid paper is 20c cheaper”?
No, he does not.
So the obsessive angst that metropolitan newspapers have over making their cover price as cheap as possible and “similar” to a competitor operating in a totally different demographic is an obsession that is ensuring our product is singing out of tune with its market. And it’s robbing us of valuable income.
In a world where a decent cup of coffee can easily leave one out of pocket for $3 or more, charging just over $1 for a single copy paper and claiming it is quality is contradictory madness. Our cousins in magazine land have got it right – the quality magazines are unabashed about charging up to $11, and how much do they have to read really?
If we wish to go after a targeted market, we need to leave behind the old thinking that circulation is king. In the new world of websites attracting millions of eyeballs on an hourly basis, the case for circulation is simply making ourselves vulnerable to ruthless advertising agencies looking for any excuse to squeeze ad rates.
In a market where quality, connection and response is prized above all, we should have a cover price that reflects this. Roll the strategy through gently by all means and keep subscriptions the same as this can be used to prove how we value loyalty. But put the cover price up at a level that reflects the value we offer our reader. Quality journalism lasts much longer than a cup of coffee.
First appeared in INMA Ideas magazine, 2008. www.inma.org.au
Marketing theory states that there are four Ps that must be in alignment for a product to sing – Product, Position, Promotion and Price. Each of these four must sit parallel and in synergy with each other.
The theory goes that if you have a product that is well thought out, is delivered to its market strongly, promoted well and has a price that reflects its perceived value, it will go gangbusters in the market.
If even only one of the Ps is out of kilter however, it will wreck the ability of the other three to succeed. It doesn’t matter which one, and one is enough to derail a product totally. No matter what your gut instinct tells you, “you must align your Ps”.
The second law is that when deciding where to place your product, you need to make a key decision – are you going after a mass market, in which case you will compete strongly on price? Or are you going after a targeted market with a quality product that is proud to differentiate itself, in which case you can charge more, and in fact should to show the market your value.
I learned all of this as part of a 16 week course that was a precursor to an MBA and covered the key fundamentals of marketing, management and finance. This of course, makes me an instant expert, but we were encouraged to apply our knowledge back to our own businesses and industry and it didn’t take long to see where so many newspapers may be going wrong. Newspapers after all, are not brain surgery.
As online news forces metropolitan print newspapers to try to differentiate themselves by offering quality, depth and unique insights in reporting – as opposed to simply responding to breaking news – we are working enormously hard to become a quality product that offers an attractive, affluent and educated audience for our advertisers.
But we are striding boldly in this new direction with a pricing strategy that is mired in the olde-worlde of mass marketing.
Does the non-committed reader of a broadsheet newspaper really stand in front of a newsstand and scratch his head thinking “Well, I want to read a quality product with some depth and investigative reporting, but heck, the tabloid paper is 20c cheaper”?
No, he does not.
So the obsessive angst that metropolitan newspapers have over making their cover price as cheap as possible and “similar” to a competitor operating in a totally different demographic is an obsession that is ensuring our product is singing out of tune with its market. And it’s robbing us of valuable income.
In a world where a decent cup of coffee can easily leave one out of pocket for $3 or more, charging just over $1 for a single copy paper and claiming it is quality is contradictory madness. Our cousins in magazine land have got it right – the quality magazines are unabashed about charging up to $11, and how much do they have to read really?
If we wish to go after a targeted market, we need to leave behind the old thinking that circulation is king. In the new world of websites attracting millions of eyeballs on an hourly basis, the case for circulation is simply making ourselves vulnerable to ruthless advertising agencies looking for any excuse to squeeze ad rates.
In a market where quality, connection and response is prized above all, we should have a cover price that reflects this. Roll the strategy through gently by all means and keep subscriptions the same as this can be used to prove how we value loyalty. But put the cover price up at a level that reflects the value we offer our reader. Quality journalism lasts much longer than a cup of coffee.
First appeared in INMA Ideas magazine, 2008. www.inma.org.au
Newspapers should sell context, not content
Economically desperate times make people economically desperate. It can also bring out the mercenary in those who believe they are in a position of power.
Advertisers who do have dollars to spend in the current fiscally challenged environment are therefore being quick to push their advantage with revenue-hungry newspapers.
They’re insisting they get a whole lot more love for their dollars, with value-adds such as marketing campaigns, additional space and special contract rates. And that’s fair enough because God knows we were guilty of starving them of attention when times were good. If our P&Ls can cope with it, we should be looking after these people.
But some love can’t be bought. Pay for love, and it’s not love any more. Demand love as part of a commercial arrangement and it’s a whole different kind of girl-meets-boy hook up. The magic disappears instantly and something rather seedy takes its place.
So beware – beware, beware!!! - the advertising pitches that require the delivery of editorial.
I’ve now sat through more than a handful of meetings of confident advertising agency types running through Powerpoints that outline their client’s spending capacity, ideas around the creative execution and key messages. Then comes the last slide, Editorial Requirements.
In these slides, the exact tone that is to be pushed is outlined and the talent available to spruik it identified. The intention is spelled out – the publisher that can deliver the most editorial exposure for the lowest advertising contract price will win the business.
Try to be clear with your readers and label the coverage transparently and you won’t get the dosh. To nail these contracts you need to pretend that the sold message really is news and embed it deep.
Let’s stop the tape there for a minute.
Now I am not a wowser. I have extensive commercial and sales experience and understand how the world works. One of the reasons why I get invited to these pitches is because the Ad team know they can rely on me not to run shrieking out of the room or deliver an indignant lecture (although I have been known to do an excellent stony face). But there is no point doing business at a cost that kills your business.
At the very heart of this conversation is an issue that it is now absolutely critical for newspapers. In fact, it is our very failure to deal with it in the past that has ensured we find ourselves – now in the digital age – without a business model to sponsor editorial the way we once did in our glory days.
Advertorials and selling - or worse, giving away - content has always existed in the 20 years that I’ve worked in newspapers.
Our collective thinking has always been that we could a) do it, take the money and to hell with the real cost of such a decision or b) not do it, walk away from the clients who insisted on it and feel a sense of puritan goodness.
Our failure to c) manage (or God forbid, drive) the conversation around the value of editorial content - and a hard value that appears on a balance sheet, not just a warm fuzzy feel-good about brand – is exactly why we are in our current pickle.
What you resist, persists.
So maybe we should deal with it once and for all.
What is the true value of editorial content?
The true value of editorial content is in its ability to create CONTEXT for advertisers.
Stories draw pictures in our minds. They inspire, they move, they inform, they persuade, they convince. Good journalism is not about hard sell. It’s about honest information.
In the past, editorial content was valued by the number of paid pages of advertising it attracted based and the sheer volume of advertisers that wanted its audience. We never sold the content, but we’ve always sold the context whether we called it that or not. Context was the area below the keyline. We sold it once and we sold it by a physical measurement of the space it took up on the page. Lots of different advertisers took us up on that.
We’re now in an environment where a smaller number of clients are in play with a wider offering of platforms across print, online and mobile. They are paying less and they’re paying for the eyeballs they know they have attracted with powerful measurement tools that give real data.
The New Context is not necessarily measured with a ruler. The New Context is about how we can allow advertising campaigns to stick to relevant stories across a variety of platforms. Even better we can grow our business by accepting that individual advertisers are interested in sponsoring new environments giving us more places to write for as journalists.
But that does not mean we have sold out.
Our power as newspapers is to enter a contract of trust with our readers that the pieces we write are timely, independent, well-researched, fact-checked and in line with our stated commitments to fairly and accurately represent our communities and their interests. A single advertiser sitting in the space where there were once many, does not and must never change this.
A single advertisement pretending to be real news however, does.
Some advertising agencies are so lazy, they think it’s easier to beat publishers about the head with the promise of dollars for free content. But that cost is too high and now is not the time to start paying it.
It’s time to start redirecting the conversation.
We will create content. We will create unique stories that are independent of thought, soundly researched, totally in tune with our masthead brands, loved and valued by our readers.
And we will sell the New Context. We will sell it to a smaller pool of advertisers whose exclusive appearance in that space does not change the value of the content, nor seek to trick or fool readers.
Google cannot do this.
Our New Context will be valuable to smart advertisers who understand the importance of environment and can measure its impact. Secure in our worth we can charge a premium.
True love might be free, but it is never cheap.
* First appeared in the Panpa Bulletin newspaper, June 2009. www.panpa.org.au
Advertisers who do have dollars to spend in the current fiscally challenged environment are therefore being quick to push their advantage with revenue-hungry newspapers.
They’re insisting they get a whole lot more love for their dollars, with value-adds such as marketing campaigns, additional space and special contract rates. And that’s fair enough because God knows we were guilty of starving them of attention when times were good. If our P&Ls can cope with it, we should be looking after these people.
But some love can’t be bought. Pay for love, and it’s not love any more. Demand love as part of a commercial arrangement and it’s a whole different kind of girl-meets-boy hook up. The magic disappears instantly and something rather seedy takes its place.
So beware – beware, beware!!! - the advertising pitches that require the delivery of editorial.
I’ve now sat through more than a handful of meetings of confident advertising agency types running through Powerpoints that outline their client’s spending capacity, ideas around the creative execution and key messages. Then comes the last slide, Editorial Requirements.
In these slides, the exact tone that is to be pushed is outlined and the talent available to spruik it identified. The intention is spelled out – the publisher that can deliver the most editorial exposure for the lowest advertising contract price will win the business.
Try to be clear with your readers and label the coverage transparently and you won’t get the dosh. To nail these contracts you need to pretend that the sold message really is news and embed it deep.
Let’s stop the tape there for a minute.
Now I am not a wowser. I have extensive commercial and sales experience and understand how the world works. One of the reasons why I get invited to these pitches is because the Ad team know they can rely on me not to run shrieking out of the room or deliver an indignant lecture (although I have been known to do an excellent stony face). But there is no point doing business at a cost that kills your business.
At the very heart of this conversation is an issue that it is now absolutely critical for newspapers. In fact, it is our very failure to deal with it in the past that has ensured we find ourselves – now in the digital age – without a business model to sponsor editorial the way we once did in our glory days.
Advertorials and selling - or worse, giving away - content has always existed in the 20 years that I’ve worked in newspapers.
Our collective thinking has always been that we could a) do it, take the money and to hell with the real cost of such a decision or b) not do it, walk away from the clients who insisted on it and feel a sense of puritan goodness.
Our failure to c) manage (or God forbid, drive) the conversation around the value of editorial content - and a hard value that appears on a balance sheet, not just a warm fuzzy feel-good about brand – is exactly why we are in our current pickle.
What you resist, persists.
So maybe we should deal with it once and for all.
What is the true value of editorial content?
The true value of editorial content is in its ability to create CONTEXT for advertisers.
Stories draw pictures in our minds. They inspire, they move, they inform, they persuade, they convince. Good journalism is not about hard sell. It’s about honest information.
In the past, editorial content was valued by the number of paid pages of advertising it attracted based and the sheer volume of advertisers that wanted its audience. We never sold the content, but we’ve always sold the context whether we called it that or not. Context was the area below the keyline. We sold it once and we sold it by a physical measurement of the space it took up on the page. Lots of different advertisers took us up on that.
We’re now in an environment where a smaller number of clients are in play with a wider offering of platforms across print, online and mobile. They are paying less and they’re paying for the eyeballs they know they have attracted with powerful measurement tools that give real data.
The New Context is not necessarily measured with a ruler. The New Context is about how we can allow advertising campaigns to stick to relevant stories across a variety of platforms. Even better we can grow our business by accepting that individual advertisers are interested in sponsoring new environments giving us more places to write for as journalists.
But that does not mean we have sold out.
Our power as newspapers is to enter a contract of trust with our readers that the pieces we write are timely, independent, well-researched, fact-checked and in line with our stated commitments to fairly and accurately represent our communities and their interests. A single advertiser sitting in the space where there were once many, does not and must never change this.
A single advertisement pretending to be real news however, does.
Some advertising agencies are so lazy, they think it’s easier to beat publishers about the head with the promise of dollars for free content. But that cost is too high and now is not the time to start paying it.
It’s time to start redirecting the conversation.
We will create content. We will create unique stories that are independent of thought, soundly researched, totally in tune with our masthead brands, loved and valued by our readers.
And we will sell the New Context. We will sell it to a smaller pool of advertisers whose exclusive appearance in that space does not change the value of the content, nor seek to trick or fool readers.
Google cannot do this.
Our New Context will be valuable to smart advertisers who understand the importance of environment and can measure its impact. Secure in our worth we can charge a premium.
True love might be free, but it is never cheap.
* First appeared in the Panpa Bulletin newspaper, June 2009. www.panpa.org.au
iPhone is the future of newspapers
Apple iPhone. Rah rah, hype, hype, blah, blah. All the noise about the Apple iPhone is just a heap of marketing bumpf designed to sell product and you can live without it, right?
Hmmm. I too was a sceptic until a cancelled meeting allowed me to play with one at the Apple Store to fill in some time. (And yes, I know what you’re thinking – Apple stores, what is it with them? The whole Apple lifestyle idea – do people realise how gullible they’re being?) And then I absolutely HAD to have one. Now I know that I have the future of newspapers in the palm of my hand.
Of course, the really terrifying thing about having the future of newspapers in the palm of your hand is the realisation that the bulk of the industry you represent has no idea how it works, doesn’t believe in it much anyway, still thinks email is nifty, thinks staff should report back to the office to use a computer and communication is a cost that should be slashed in these tough economic times.
But the iPhone and the new generation Blackberries and 3G phones is very, very important to newspapers. So important that if the universe granted me one wish tomorrow, it would be that every senior (and very senior) executive in my company was given one and locked in a room until they became proficient at using it. That would only take about half an hour, because it isn’t rocket science. (That would be my wish, even before the desire for world peace, because if newspaper senior execs could get their brains around how iPhone technology could revolutionise their business, world peace would be solved pretty shortly afterwards. I mean that as a compliment, gentlemen.)
Why is the iPhone so revolutionary for our industry? (Apologies to everyone who already has an iPhone or has converted to 3G – I’m assuming it’s not many of you as this is running in the magazine, not online.)
For a start, an iPhone is not a phone. At the risk of sounding like a press release, it is a palm sized device that captures every single way people communicate and use media today in one handy pocket-sized gadget.
Think about that for a minute. Every way – from phone calls to email, to Facebook to Twitters, to online, to texting, to instant messaging, to listening to music, watching video or downloaded audio. It is the future of media because it brings everything together and makes communication seamless and simple. It doesn’t insist that you choose one or the other. It lets you choose anything.
And not only that, it doesn’t dictate how you pay for it, or access it. While I coveted my husband’s Blackberry, I was always a sceptic because he only used text, email and phone because the online access and downloads were so expensive on the mobile network. The iPhone however allows me to do the heavy grunt work of downloads via my computer, and/or wifi.
The iPhone is the future of media because it fundamentally changes the ground rules – again.
And the fundamental that it changes is that consumer trends are now totally trumping industry trends, according to the November 2008 report Top 15 Trend Questions and Answers from the independent consumer trends firm trendwatching.com.
“Focusing solely on your own industry will obscure the fact that in economies of abundance, consumers are increasingly spending their ‘play money’ on goods and services that net them the experience, the indulgence, the excitement, the satisfaction that they are looking for at a specific moment,” the report says.
Want to know the best way to future proof your business? Stop being amazed at the changes The Guardian or The Washington Post have introduced and look at what companies like Apple, Ikea, BMW and Virgin are doing and get creative about how it can apply to the news business. How can newspapers make sure consumers get the satisfaction of the newspaper experience at any given moment anywhere in any application – not just over breakfast. And how can we monetise that?
“Consumer expectations are often set outside your own industry,” trendwatching.com writes. “Limiting yourself to your own industry will make you miss important changes in consumer expectations and will thus put you at risk of disappointing or even annoying consumers.”
So here are some more fundamental truths of the newspaper industry right now: you cannot purport to be a media company in 2009 if you are only interested in hard copy print. You cannot purport to be a media company in 2009 if you think applications like Facebook and Twitter are irrelevant to your business and something your staff just waste time on during the day.
Yes, yes, it’s the recession and money for new ventures is non-existent. But there will be people in your company that are intuitively connected to this thinking. Let them get together. Listen to their ideas. Dare to let them try it out.
If you believe that the financial future of your company is connected to digital, you need to stop thinking that involves setting up and running an online news site of excellence with some advertising attached.
Digital is not just online any more. Digital is now in the palm of your hand. And it’s so easy, even a newspaper executive can operate and even have fun with it.
Hallelujah.
This piece first appeared in the INMA Ideas magazine. See www.inma.org
Hmmm. I too was a sceptic until a cancelled meeting allowed me to play with one at the Apple Store to fill in some time. (And yes, I know what you’re thinking – Apple stores, what is it with them? The whole Apple lifestyle idea – do people realise how gullible they’re being?) And then I absolutely HAD to have one. Now I know that I have the future of newspapers in the palm of my hand.
Of course, the really terrifying thing about having the future of newspapers in the palm of your hand is the realisation that the bulk of the industry you represent has no idea how it works, doesn’t believe in it much anyway, still thinks email is nifty, thinks staff should report back to the office to use a computer and communication is a cost that should be slashed in these tough economic times.
But the iPhone and the new generation Blackberries and 3G phones is very, very important to newspapers. So important that if the universe granted me one wish tomorrow, it would be that every senior (and very senior) executive in my company was given one and locked in a room until they became proficient at using it. That would only take about half an hour, because it isn’t rocket science. (That would be my wish, even before the desire for world peace, because if newspaper senior execs could get their brains around how iPhone technology could revolutionise their business, world peace would be solved pretty shortly afterwards. I mean that as a compliment, gentlemen.)
Why is the iPhone so revolutionary for our industry? (Apologies to everyone who already has an iPhone or has converted to 3G – I’m assuming it’s not many of you as this is running in the magazine, not online.)
For a start, an iPhone is not a phone. At the risk of sounding like a press release, it is a palm sized device that captures every single way people communicate and use media today in one handy pocket-sized gadget.
Think about that for a minute. Every way – from phone calls to email, to Facebook to Twitters, to online, to texting, to instant messaging, to listening to music, watching video or downloaded audio. It is the future of media because it brings everything together and makes communication seamless and simple. It doesn’t insist that you choose one or the other. It lets you choose anything.
And not only that, it doesn’t dictate how you pay for it, or access it. While I coveted my husband’s Blackberry, I was always a sceptic because he only used text, email and phone because the online access and downloads were so expensive on the mobile network. The iPhone however allows me to do the heavy grunt work of downloads via my computer, and/or wifi.
The iPhone is the future of media because it fundamentally changes the ground rules – again.
And the fundamental that it changes is that consumer trends are now totally trumping industry trends, according to the November 2008 report Top 15 Trend Questions and Answers from the independent consumer trends firm trendwatching.com.
“Focusing solely on your own industry will obscure the fact that in economies of abundance, consumers are increasingly spending their ‘play money’ on goods and services that net them the experience, the indulgence, the excitement, the satisfaction that they are looking for at a specific moment,” the report says.
Want to know the best way to future proof your business? Stop being amazed at the changes The Guardian or The Washington Post have introduced and look at what companies like Apple, Ikea, BMW and Virgin are doing and get creative about how it can apply to the news business. How can newspapers make sure consumers get the satisfaction of the newspaper experience at any given moment anywhere in any application – not just over breakfast. And how can we monetise that?
“Consumer expectations are often set outside your own industry,” trendwatching.com writes. “Limiting yourself to your own industry will make you miss important changes in consumer expectations and will thus put you at risk of disappointing or even annoying consumers.”
So here are some more fundamental truths of the newspaper industry right now: you cannot purport to be a media company in 2009 if you are only interested in hard copy print. You cannot purport to be a media company in 2009 if you think applications like Facebook and Twitter are irrelevant to your business and something your staff just waste time on during the day.
Yes, yes, it’s the recession and money for new ventures is non-existent. But there will be people in your company that are intuitively connected to this thinking. Let them get together. Listen to their ideas. Dare to let them try it out.
If you believe that the financial future of your company is connected to digital, you need to stop thinking that involves setting up and running an online news site of excellence with some advertising attached.
Digital is not just online any more. Digital is now in the palm of your hand. And it’s so easy, even a newspaper executive can operate and even have fun with it.
Hallelujah.
This piece first appeared in the INMA Ideas magazine. See www.inma.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
